Kivalina lawsuit (re global warming)

On 26 February 2008 Kivalina, a Native Alaskan village of approximately 390 Inupiat residents, launched a federal lawsuit in California aimed at oil, coal and power companies. The plaintiffs argue that the defendants’ contribution to global warming through their emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses substantially and unreasonably interferes with the plaintiffs’ rights to use and enjoy public and private property in Kivalina. The village seeks to recover monetary damages, up to $400 million, for the cost of relocating the entire village as a result of what they describe as "defendants’ past and ongoing contributions to global warming". Kivalina also alleges that certain defendants conspired to suppress public awareness of the link between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, thereby further contributing to the community’s injuries.

On 30 June 2008 BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Peabody Energy and Shell filed motions to dismiss the case on several grounds. First, these defendants claimed that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case because the claim raises nonjusticiable political questions (more information on the political question doctrine here). Second, they argued that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the case because they cannot establish the causal link between the injuries complained of and the defendants’ acts. Third, these defendants argued that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim recognised under law. Finally, they argued that the plaintiffs’ conspiracy claim runs contrary to the US Constitution’s First Amendment protections of free expression.

Responding to the motion to dismiss, plaintiffs argued that their claim is that of simple public nuisance. In response to the political question argument, Kivalina underlined that it only asks the Court to resolve a dispute between the parties and award monetary damages if appropriate. Plaintiffs also pleaded that their conspiracy claim does not run contrary to the First Amendment because the latter does not protect deliberately false statements or deceptive conduct. Finally, plaintiffs argued that they have standing to bring the case as there is no requirement for them to specify which particular emission and at what point in time caused the community’s injury.

In addition to the companies referred to above, defendants in this case include: AES, American Electric Power, DTE Energy, Duke Energy, Dynegy, Edison Intl., MidAmerican Energy, Mirant, NRG Energy, Pinnacle West, Reliant Energy, Southern Company and Xcel Energy. On 30 September 2009, the US District Court for the Northern District of California granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, agreeing with the defendants’ arguments that the case raises nonjusticiable political questions and that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring the case. In November 2009, Kivalina Village appealed this dismissal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In September 2012 the appeals court rejected Kivalina's appeal, affirming the lower court's dismissal of the case. In October 2012, Kivalina asked the appeals court to rehear the case en banc (before the full panel of appeals court judges), but the court refused to rehear the case. The plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Supreme Court in February 2013, but the court declined to hear the appeal.

All components of this story

One of Alaska’s most eroded villages wants to revive a lawsuit that claims greenhouse gasses from oil, power and coal companies are to blame for the climate change endangering the tiny community. The city of Kivalina and…the Alaska Native village of Kivalina filed the case in federal court in…2008, but it was dismissed in October. Now they’re appealing…, with their opening brief due March 11. Oil giants Exxon Mobil Corp. and BP PLC are among two dozen defendants named in the lawsuit. Representatives for the two companies declined to comment Jan. 28…Kivalina’s attorney…said the plaintiffs want monetary damages to help with the estimated $400 million cost to relocate the northwest Alaska village.

Tiny Kivalina, Alaska,...has a very big lawsuit that might affect the way the nation deals with climate change... [It] is accusing two dozen fuel and utility companies of helping to cause the climate change that it says is accelerating the island’s erosion... The village wants the companies, including ExxonMobil, Shell Oil, and many others, to pay the costs of relocating to the mainland, which could amount to as much as $400 million. The case is one of three major lawsuits...around the nation against big producers of heat-trapping gases. And...the cases are gathering steam. In recent months, two federal appeals courts reversed decisions by federal district courts to dismiss climate-change lawsuits, allowing the cases to go forward... And although a federal judge...dismissed the Kivalina suit in October, the village is appealing the decision... Kivalina alleged in its complaint that the industry conspired “to suppress the awareness of the link” between emissions and climate change... If the climate-change cases even get to the discovery stage, and if the energy industry possesses embarrassing e-mail messages and memorandums..., [James Tierney, director of National State Attorneys General programme at Columbia Law School] said, “it’s a hammer” that could drive industries to the negotiating table. [also refers to American Electric Power]

Categories

Plaintiffs in Native Village of Kivalina v. Exxon Corp, one of several tort-based lawsuits filed against major energy companies seeking damages related to climate change, are appealing a district court’s dismissal of their lawsuit to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit . In Kivalina, a small, primarily-Eskimo village situated on a barrier reef that is disappearing from Alaska’s northwest coast — allegedly due to rising water levels — is seeking damages from 19 of the country’s biggest oil companies for their alleged contribution to global warming... two similar “nuisance” cases, both of which were also dismissed on standing and political question grounds at the district court level, were reinstated on appeal...

In a carefully watched case in the Northern District of California, Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong has issued a ruling dismissing the Kivalina climate change lawsuit on grounds that: (1) it raises a non-justiciable political question, and (2) plaintiffs lack Article III standing…In the Kivalina case, the Native Village of Kivalina, Alaska filed suit against two dozen energy companies, attempting to recover at least $400 million in damages for public nuisance related to emissions of greenhouse gases that Plaintiffs alleged contributed to global warming and caused the sea level to rise, destroying parts of the village.

Lawyers for the Alaska Native coastal village of Kivalina, which is being forced to relocate because of flooding caused by the changing Arctic climate, filed suit in federal court here Tuesday arguing that 5 oil companies, 14 electric utilities and the country’s largest coal company were responsible for the village’s woes. The suit is the latest effort to hold companies like BP America, Chevron, Peabody Energy, Duke Energy and the Southern Company responsible for the impact of global warming because they emit millions of tons of greenhouse gases…It accused the companies of creating a public nuisance. In an unusual move, those five companies and three other defendants — the Exxon Mobil Corporation, American Electric Power and the Conoco Phillips Company — are also accused of conspiracy…[S]pokesmen for three defendants [Southern, Peabody, Exxon Mobil]…said they would not comment on the substance of the lawsuit…

Categories

On 26 February 2008 Kivalina, a Native Alaskan village of approximately 390 Inupiat residents, launched a federal lawsuit in California aimed at oil, coal and power companies. The plaintiffs argue that the defendants’ contribution to global warming through their emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses substantially and unreasonably interferes with the plaintiffs’ rights to use and enjoy public and private property in Kivalina. The village seeks to recover monetary damages, up to $400 million, for the cost of relocating the entire village as a result of what they describe as ‘defendants’ past and ongoing contributions to global warming’. Kivalina also alleges that certain defendants conspired to suppress public awareness of the link between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, thereby further contributing to the community’s injuries.

On 30 June 2008 BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Peabody Energy and Shell filed motions to dismiss the case on several grounds. First, these defendants claimed that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case because the claim raises nonjusticiable political questions (more information on the political question doctrine here). Second, they argued that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the case because they cannot establish the causal link between the injuries complained of and the defendants’ acts. Third, these defendants argued that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim recognised under law. Finally, they argued that the plaintiffs’ conspiracy claim runs contrary to the US Constitution’s First Amendment protections of free expression.

Responding to the motion to dismiss, plaintiffs argued that their claim is that of simple public nuisance. In response to the political question argument, Kivalina underlined that it only asks the Court to resolve a dispute between the parties and award monetary damages if appropriate. Plaintiffs also pleaded that their conspiracy claim does not run contrary to the First Amendment because the latter does not protect deliberately false statements or deceptive conduct. Finally, plaintiffs argued that they have standing to bring the case as there is no requirement for them to specify which particular emission and at what point in time caused the community’s injury.

In addition to the companies referred to above, defendants in this case include: AES, American Electric Power, DTE Energy, Duke Energy, Dynegy, Edison Intl., MidAmerican Energy, Mirant, NRG Energy, Pinnacle West, Reliant Energy, Southern Company and Xcel Energy. On 30 September 2009, the US District Court for the Northern District of California granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, agreeing with the defendants’ arguments that the case raises nonjusticiable political questions and that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring the case. In November 2009, Kivalina Village appealed this dismissal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In September 2012 the appeals court rejected Kivalina's appeal, affirming the lower court's dismissal of the case. In October 2012, Kivalina asked the appeals court to rehear the case en banc (before the full panel of appeals court judges), but the court refused to rehear the case. The plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Supreme Court in February 2013, but the court declined to hear the appeal.

Site tools

Follow us

Disclaimer: Business & Human Rights Resource Centre and its collaborative partners take no position on the diverse views presented in linked material by the various commentators, organizations & companies. As with any database, we cannot guarantee the factual accuracy of all the articles & reports we make available.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

/*

/*

/*

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.